• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Democrats shouldn't run conservative candidates everywhere but you need to pick your battles. A Liz Warren type that would turn out the base in a blue state is going to do jack shit in Arkansas, where the Democrat will only have a chance at winning if the Republican is a complete fuck-up. And that chance diminishes if the Democrat is also unpalatable to the electorate, because they'll win on the backs of Republican-leaning voters changing their minds.

There are certain lines to be drawn, sure, but I'm far more forgiving of a Democratic candidate in Arkansas opposing the Iran deal than say, oh for a random example, Florida (*COUGHALANGRAYSONCOUGH*)
Click to expand...

but some people in the House voted against Obamacare and still lost. There is a certain point where your district or state has changed so much from when you first got elected x number of years ago it does not matter what vote you take. Unless you are fortunate like Susan Collins or Chuck Grassley who have a personal connection that Trump party identity and states that have not veered far in their opposing parties camp.

Run Chuck Grassley or Susan Collins in Deleware and they lose handily.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
RustyNails said:
If people want to vote republican, they will vote for one with an R next to his name. Running a fake Republican campaign will end up in tears for him when his opponent ties him to the Obama-Pelosi-Reid liberal agenda in TV ad after TV ad. Why not explain why Obamacare and the Iran deal is good instead of shitting on it. Its not like he has a shot at winning anyway. 2014 taught me that.
Click to expand...

They're not wanting to vote for a republican is the point. They feel trapped between a liberal democratic party they can't associate and a party which hates all government. Why wouldn't they like a middle candidate that leans more towards the former?

And if that's what to took away from 2014, then I don't see how its radically different than 2012 republicans going "we didn't go right enough!"

The problem wasn't the issues and positions themselves (more moderate dems won in 2012 on the same platform!).
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
They're not wanting to vote for a republican is the point. They feel trapped between a liberal democratic party they can't associate and a party which hates all government. Why wouldn't they like a middle candidate that leans more towards the former?

And if that's what to took away from 2014, then I don't see how its radically different than 2012 republicans going "we didn't go right enough!"

The problem wasn't the issues and positions themselves (more moderate dems won in 2012 on the same platform!).
Click to expand...

then what was the problem in 2014 if that is not the lesson?
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
NYCmetsfan said:
They're not wanting to vote for a republican is the point. They feel trapped between a liberal democratic party they can't associate and a party which hates all government. Why wouldn't they like a middle candidate that leans more towards the former?

And if that's what to took away from 2014, then I don't see how its radically different than 2012 republicans going "we didn't go right enough!"

The problem wasn't the issues and positions themselves (more moderate dems won in 2012 on the same platform!).
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that Dems have been running away from their own accomplishments, which makes them look dumb. If you, or your party. did something good that you agree with, even if it's not perfect, show some damn pride in it.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
NYCmetsfan said:
Because they want the "Republican lite" (which is a stupid term, there are differences, clear ones) ?

The two candidates are different, he doesn't support repealing obamacare boozman does. He's likely to support gay marriage, boozman isn't, etc. Etc.

I seriously don't understand why any voter would follow the thought process you set up and why if that was true how dems could win by running left.


Why do people choose diet coke over regular coke? Because there's a difference. And one fits them better
Click to expand...

There are differences, but they usually don't do the best job at pointing those differences out. Take Peggy Nunn in Georgia for instance. She would probably be one of the more liberal democrats, but she primary sold herself as someone who would focus on bringing both sides together to break the gridlock in Washington, not on liberal values.

I could see it maybe being beneficial to sell yourself as someone that generally agrees with the democrat party's values, with few differences in things like the Iran Deal. That's honestly how most of these red state democrats vote. But they so rarely talk about the things they do agree with Democrats about when it comes to actually campaigning.

NeoXChaos said:
Give me an example of a Democrat running far left and winning in hostile territory such as the South or a Republican winning in the northeast running far right?

The state parties vary from region to region and have always differed from their national counterparts. It's how they distinguished themselves from the national brand in order to get elected or reelected as the years go by.
Click to expand...

What are the examples of candidates running far left campaigns losing in hostile territory? The only one I remember from 2014 was Rick Weiland, who kinda got screwed by the Democrat's strategy of running a republican-lite independent instead of a Democrat when the race started to look possible to win. And we saw how well that worked in Kansas.

When you get the DSCC using the same strategy of running republican-lite in red states year after year, there's not many chances to see whether or not an honest shot at a progressive campaign in a red state can win, like how someone like Walker can win in Wisconsin.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Christ on a stick, the GOP got a victory over the ACA in courts again.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9297565/obamacare-lawsuit-standing-victory

We have yet to see where it goes. And it will be repealed. And if the SCOTUS takes it...god...


but lol @ the GOP for not even getting a vote on Iran. But it doesn't bode well for a shutdown...
Click to expand...

At least this time they can't hide behind some shitheads living in Virginia or a faceless political organization. Actual House Republicans have to explain why they are suing to take away benefits from 5+ million vulnerable Americans.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Coriolanus said:
No, they don't. They objectively don't. Not only do they do not want it, they don't even bother to turn up for election when all they have to choose from is Shitty Candidate vs Less Shitty Candidate. As we've just seen.

You will not get the seat by running on their terms. You will lose. Badly. As we've just seen.

Change the strat, find a way to increase attendance. Or do what you've always done, and get the same results you always get.
Click to expand...

You can't win by distancing yourself from Obama!

ap_Heidi_Heitkamp_senate_race_close_thg_121115_mn.jpg


18772547_BG1.jpg


800px-Joe_Donnelly%2C_official_portrait%2C_113th_Congress.jpg
Click to expand...
 
A

Averon

Member
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
then what was the problem in 2014 if that is not the lesson?
Click to expand...

More of this and running campaigns ignorant of what was driving the people to the voting both. Not really their positions per se

B-Dubs said:
Part of the problem is that Dems have been running away from their own accomplishments, which makes them look dumb. If you, or your party. did something good that you agree with, even if it's not perfect, show some damn pride in it.
Click to expand...

Even then I don't think their positions were that much of an issue. Their were just some poorly run campaigns (colorado for one), and demographic forces which were hard to overcome that and republicans like Tillis were able to hide their actual platform. There's a lot more but the simplistic "the were republican lite" doesn't hold water and I don't think is even internally consistant in a thesis on how it would lead people to vote that way and for that reason or how it works with the races that were lost. They didn't excite their liberal base and they sat out is how they lost in Lousiana? That just doesn't make sense. It maybe does in Colorado or Iowa but not in places like LA, AR, NC, etc. Its also a damn midterm. We saw the same thing in 2010, in 1994, etc dems don't vote, no matter the candidate. Its the coalition damn it!

I just don't know how you expect this to work in AR.

Politicians don't move voters. Voters move politicians. There is no liberal constituency to win a state race in AR so why not cobble one together that maybe has a chance how ever small for a dem majority leader. We got the ACA with Lincoln, Pryer, Landreau! Do you think we would have gotten something better without them? Or that we could have had a better class?

thepotatoman said:
What are the examples of candidates running far left campaigns losing in hostile territory? The only one I remember from 2014 was Rick Weiland, who kinda got screwed by the Democrat's strategy of running a republican-lite independent instead of a Democrat when the race started to look possible to win. And we saw how well that worked in Kansas.

When you get the DSCC using the same strategy of running republican-lite in red states year after year, there's not many chances to see whether or not an honest shot at a progressive campaign in a red state can win, like how someone like Walker can win in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

Not a lot, because the democratic party in those areas isn't super liberal! They run and lose in primaries. They're isn't even a path for them to win elections with only dems!
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
More of this and running campaigns ignorant of what was driving the people to the voting both. Not really their positions per se



Even then I don't think their positions were that much of an issue. Their were just some poorly run campaigns (colorado for one), and demographic forces which were hard to overcome that and republicans like Tillis were able to hide their actual platform. There's a lot more but the simplistic "the were republican lite" doesn't hold water and I don't think is even internally consistant in a thesis on how it would lead people to vote that way and for that reason or how it works with the races that were lost. They didn't excite their liberal base and they sat out is how they lost in Lousiana? That just doesn't make sense. It maybe does in Colorado or Iowa but not in places like LA, AR, NC, etc. Its also a damn midterm. We saw the same thing in 2010, in 1994, etc.
Click to expand...

True. The South has a liberal base but the numbers dwarf in comparison to the rest of the country. The minority/liberal white vote is not enough of a raw number to overcome the rest of the states conservative tilt here and in the rest of the south. In extreme cases like Manchin there is no Obama Coalition in West Virginia to rely on. Paul Davis in Kansas did not lose because the liberal base sat out. There is not much of a liberal or minority base present in Kansas.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
NYCmetsfan said:
They're not wanting to vote for a republican is the point. They feel trapped between a liberal democratic party they can't associate and a party which hates all government. Why wouldn't they like a middle candidate that leans more towards the former?

And if that's what to took away from 2014, then I don't see how its radically different than 2012 republicans going "we didn't go right enough!"

The problem wasn't the issues and positions themselves (more moderate dems won in 2012 on the same platform!).
Click to expand...

The 2014 campaigns almost exclusively targeted those types of people, and yet that didn't work at all. Where those candidates too far left? What should they have done differently to move further right?

The biggest component we're seeing today is demographics benefiting Democrats in the presidential election, and benefiting republicans in the midterms. I would say that the republicans that say they have to refocus on young people and minorities to win are right. There's not much more you can squeeze out of the old white vote. They have nothing better to do than vote, and you can't rely on them for very long when they're dieing of old age.

But are Democrats right to take their demographic problem of old white people determining midterm elections and choosing to focus on getting old white people to vote Democrat? If given the choice between either changing young people's decision on go to the polls on election day, or changing the minds of the old people who typically vote republican, which do you think is easier?

I would say getting young people who already agree with you out to the polls would be the easier of those two options, and you're not going to do that running a republican lite campaign. You need to give young people a reason to care about voting. Nagging them about not voting while presenting two options that at face value seem extremely similar to each other isn't working.
 
S

Snake

Member
If you want to win a midterm election in a President's second term, be from the party opposite of the President.

There, 2014 "solved."
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
2014 was a combination of panic of ISIS taking over the ME and ebola killing everyone combined with minority voters not turning out. Not supporting Obama enough was a very minor part of it, IMO.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say any of the incumbent Democratic senators (Pryor, Begich, Hagan, Landrieu, Udall) who lost in 2014 really made a conscious effort to "run away" from Obama. Simply put, Landrieu and Pryor's state leans caught up to them in a big way, Hagan and Begich came heartbreakingly close and would have won in any other year and Udall ran an ineffective campaign based on abortion, mainly hurt when Cory Gardner did a complete backflip on his personhood amendment and the media was too busy washing his balls to cover it.

In fact the way the media covered both Colorado and Iowa's Senate races that year was beyond embarrassing.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Crisco said:
At least this time they can't hide behind some shitheads living in Virginia or a faceless political organization. Actual House Republicans have to explain why they are suing to take away benefits from 5+ million vulnerable Americans.
Click to expand...

I have reservations regarding whether their base will give a shit regardless of the crappy reason they use. I think it's close to 7 million now too?
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Constituencies egg on conservative tea party legislators to force leadership fight

Leadership is in danger of losing their jobs

Leadership strikes deals with Democratic minorities to keep themselves in power

Deals include bringing immigration reform up for a vote

Immigration reform passes and is signed by Obama who thanks Sen. McConnell and Speaker Boehner for supporting bipartisan common sense reform

Republican base completely loses its shit and starts primarying Congresscritters left and right

Donald Trump loses presidential election, Democrats swing 40 House seats/10 Senate seats, Hillary uses mandate to pass education/energy/infrastructure reforms and a new budget that repeals the sequester and increases taxes

dealwithit.jpg
Click to expand...

I've been stuck at work, but wanted to seize on the bolded part where Obama praises the GOP leadership for their cooperation (especially with respect to the upcoming funding bill due to be passed by the end of September).

I love this idea. I'm imagining how much more rage this would drive within the GOP base.

The Democratic base (at the moment) is a bit more realistic than the GOP base; their expectations for anything coming out of a GOP-controlled Congress are pretty tempered. They're not going to be too upset about Obama appearing to compromise with Congress to get the basic keep-the-government-running business done.

Effectively taunting the Republican base, who came into January 2015 with unrealistically high expectations of their newly-minted Congress.. that could be incredibly worthwhile. Drive them into nominating a shutdown-loving loon, or nominate someone whom the base hates.

==

Also:
Trump says of Kim Davis: "This was not the right job for her."

Here's the FreeRepublic reaction: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3334901/posts

I love that this is still an ongoing issue, here in September. And I wonder how it'll re-surface later on during the cycle.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Jeb!'s tax plan is basically his brother's plan, only bigger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/u...-a-large-tax-cut-for-the-wealthiest.html?_r=0

He's literally running the same campaign.

Colbert asked him last night what's different about him and his brother's policies and he said he's "better looking." Then he finally tried to argue his brother didn't reign in spending from Congress. That's it.

Foreign policy? Same. Tax policy? Same. Social policy? Same. Immigration? Same. I can't believe people actually think a Bush can win.

Anyway, here are some highlights of the plan from the NY Times.

According to an analysis by The New York Times, Mr. Bush’s tax plan would reduce the effective tax income rate on filers making $10 million or more per year to approximately 21 percent, down from 26 percent in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available. The average taxpayer in this group earned $29.2 million in 2013, meaning the plan proposed by Mr. Bush would have saved them an average of $1.5 million that year.
Click to expand...

Job creators!

The reason Mr. Bush’s plan cuts taxes for the rich so much is simple: He would cut the top tax rate on regular income by almost 12 percentage points and on capital income by almost 4 points. The current seven-bracket tax system, with rates from 10 percent to 39.6 percent, would be replaced with just three brackets of 10, 25 and 28 percent. Maximum tax rates on investment income would drop from 23.8 percent to 20 percent.
Click to expand...

Gotta help those poor rich.

Mr. Bush would eliminate and cap many deductions and tax a greater share of top earners’ income. However, The Times’s analysis finds that these base expansion effects would be small relative to the tax rate cuts.
Click to expand...

Of course they are small, relatively.

Mr. Bush’s plan wouldn’t cut taxes just for the rich. In part by doubling the standard deduction, it would cut income taxes on all income groups and most tax filers. By expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, it would cut taxes for some who currently pay no federal income tax. It would also significantly cut the corporate income tax.
Click to expand...

aka the crumbs that his brother used.

Mr. Bush is making no such promise of revenue neutrality. According to an estimate prepared by prominent conservative economists, including Glenn Hubbard and Martin Feldstein, his plan would reduce government revenues by $3.4 trillion over 10 years before accounting for economic feedback effects, making it somewhat larger, relative to the economy, than his brother’s tax cut packages.
Click to expand...

Fiscally responsible, just like his brother!

“If this plan was financed by contemporaneous entitlement cuts, I think it’s clear there would be a significant increase in economic growth,” said Alan Viard, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. But he said middle-income people might not be better off, despite getting tax cuts.

“Some income groups will be hit by the entitlement reductions that are being adopted under the scenario, and so then obviously you have to take that into account,” Mr. Viard said. “One might ask whether the growth effects are sufficiently big so that those groups come out ahead in the long run, and certainly I think that’s possible, but we don’t know.”
Click to expand...

Great for the rich, okay for the poor, but fuck you middle class!

Yeah, great campaign there. You'll get tax cuts, but that doesn't mean you'll be better off after we cut out other things, vote for me, I'm Jeb!
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Christ on a stick, the GOP got a victory over the ACA in courts again.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9297565/obamacare-lawsuit-standing-victory

We have yet to see where it goes. And it will be repealed. And if the SCOTUS takes it...god...


but lol @ the GOP for not even getting a vote on Iran. But it doesn't bode well for a shutdown...
Click to expand...

Has there ever been a case where a law that was working fairly well faced multiple lawsuits seeking to force it to work less well?

Maybe benjipwns would know this. It seems fairly unprecedented. Though it's kind of brilliant. Campaign on the idea that government doesn't work. Then sue to force it not to work.

These people are absolute scum.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Snake said:
If you want to win a midterm election in a President's second term, be from the party opposite of the President.

There, 2014 "solved."
Click to expand...

Sure it's expected for the President's party to lose seats, but that doesn't usually mean they lose all of congress by a ton. Even going by this interpretation, the only bright spot for democrats here is that he only lost 13 seats in the house for his second term, which isn't exactly a bright spot at all when that's only because the huge republican gains of 2010 never really went away in 2012 thanks to gerrymandering.

This problem clearly goes beyond the usual incumbent midterm disadvantage.

First term
Average House: -32
Obama House: -63
Average Senate: -0
Obama Senate: -6

Second term
Average House: -29
Obama House: -13
Average Senate: -5
Obama Senate: -9

Most lost seats for president's party in midterms since FDR:

House
2010 Obama: -63
1992 Clinton: -52
1958 Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford(Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30

Senate
1958 Eisenhower: -13
1946 Truman: -12
2014 Obama: -9
1992 Clinton: -8
1986 Reagan: -8
2010 Obama: -6
2006 Bush: -6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/12/03/the-myth-of-the-six-year-itch/

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Let's not.
Click to expand...

Wiki sez he has three boys. Shutting down that "take it back" line of thinking should be as easy as asking him "and would you be willing to see your boys die for it, or just the children of other families?"

Plinko said:
Please run on that platform, Ben. America is just so excited about the possibility of more wars.
Click to expand...


Do keep in mind that most of his base would be absolutely thrilled at the idea of killing more brown folk.
 
U

User1608

Banned
Crisco said:
At least this time they can't hide behind some shitheads living in Virginia or a faceless political organization. Actual House Republicans have to explain why they are suing to take away benefits from 5+ million vulnerable Americans.
Click to expand...
Fuck this party. Why..........
ivysaur12 said:
Boehner will never bring this up for a vote:
Click to expand...
LOL. Do it Louie, ya loveable scamp!
Wilsongt said:
Palin called BLM dogs.
Click to expand...
I got another word for her that describes a certain dog, but I'm not going to go there. Hope BLM continues to get louder and have more success!
Black Mamba said:
Trump said some stuff about Carly



Good fucking lord...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-20150909?page=13
Click to expand...
Trump definitely gives no bucks, that's for sure.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
To go back to the previous discussion, there's a difference between taking heterodoxical stances on certain issues because of your states economy (ie. Senator's from Delaware are always going to be shills for credit card companies) and not even being able to admit you voted for Obama.

As ole' Slick Willy said, people would rather vote for somebody who is strong but wrong, rather than weak and right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom